Questioning Our Assumptions About Iran

These are strange days for New York City’s finest. Over the weekend, they deployed in force to find the terrorist who tried to bomb Times Square. Yesterday, they deployed in force to protect the terrorist who is president of Iran. One of these guys works in propane, fireworks and gasoline; the other guy in enriched uranium, polonium triggers and ballistic missiles. ~Bret Stephens

This is how Stephens begins his column, which he presumably would like his readers to take seriously. Before getting to his treatment of non-proliferation, I find Stephens’ sloppy use of the word terrorist to be quite telling. On the one hand, there clearly was an attempted terrorist attack averted in New York, which threatened to maim and kill civilians for the purpose of sending some sort of political and/or religious message. Whoever was responsible for the attempted bombing was engaged in terrorism. Ahmadinejad is a demagogic politician with cronies in Iran’s military and security services. By what definition of terrorism can one seriously refer to Ahmadinejad as a terrorist? Of course, the purpose for using this word is not to describe Ahmadinejad when many other derisive labels would work even better, but to identify him and the supposed threat the (non-existent) Iranian bomb could pose with the threat of terrorist attacks in the U.S. From the start, Stephens’ analysis is propagandistic and misleading.

Stephens continues:

That other guy—the one who didn’t roll into town in a Pathfinder—was in Manhattan to unload on this month’s U.N. review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And unload he did: on the Truman administration, on the Obama administration, on “the Zionist regime,” on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, on the NPT itself. For all this, Iran is still considered a member in good standing of the treaty, entitled to its seat at the International Atomic Energy Agency and its right to the nuclear reactors [bold mine-DL].

This will probably be hard for Stephens to follow, but Iran’s status as a signatory to the NPT doesn’t depend on whether or not its weak president gives an inflammatory, annoying speech somewhere. Until Iran produces nuclear weapons, it will continue to have “its right to the nuclear reactors” guaranteed by the treaty. Fundamentally, Iran hawks don’t like the treaty because it allows Iran to develop and to have some nuclear technology, and the hawks regard Iran’s mere possession of any form of this technology as unacceptable because of what it might lead to at some point in the future.

One of the hurdles Washington has encountered in rounding up international support for a new round of sanctions is the obvious hostility the U.S. and some of our allies have to the Iranians’ possession of any nuclear program. Other developing nations see this hostility as an expression of the one-sided nature of the non-proliferation regime and as an attempt to deny a developing country access to energy that it has every legal right to seek. Many of the world’s emerging-market democracies and even some of our allies do not share our obsession with curtailing Iran’s nuclear program, because they do not believe that it will lead inevitably to a bomb. In the past, much of the rest of the world has been skeptical when Washington has cried wolf about potential international threats, and the rest of the world was right to be skeptical. Why are all these other governments wrong this time?

It is worth noting here that Ahmadinejad recently repeated his government’s formal opposition to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. Obviously, no one takes this at face value, and most of us assume that Iranian officials must be lying whenever they say this. Nonetheless, it could be useful to consider the possibility that what we assume about Iranian intentions is simply wrong. Just as “everyone” agreed that Iraq had WMD programs (even though there were actually quite a few vocal skeptics), practically everyone in the U.S. is quite sure that Iran is working on building a bomb. In almost everything I have written on Iran for the last five years, I have taken this for granted, but as more time passes the claim that Iran is eagerly working toward a bomb and will have a nuclear weapon very soon becomes less and less credible. Everything else in the debate on Iran policy centers around what is a fairly questionable assumption. If it is wrong, we are all making sanctions vs. containment vs. military strike arguments about something that may not be happening at all, and we are throwing away any chance of opening up normal relations with Iran on account of what could be a fantasy.

P.S. Race for Iran has some relevant comments from Mohammed ElBaradei.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 20 comments

20 Responses to Questioning Our Assumptions About Iran

It is greatly to your credit, Mr Larison, that you are able to question what seems to be, in your circles (US political commentary), an article of faith.

“If it is wrong, we are all making sanctions vs. containment vs. military strike arguments about something that may not be happening at all, and we are throwing away any chance of opening up normal relations with Iran on account of what could be a fantasy.”

You are, of course, aware that there are influential people who would see anything like “normal [US] relations” with Iran as a highly undesirable state of affairs? I think you’ll find this is what has been behind the deliberate creation and promotion in the US over the last few years of the hysteria over the Iranian atomic energy program. Opinions will undoubtedly differ as to which US commentators on Iran are honest (if deluded) and which have been paid liars (or willing self-deceivers, at any rate).

It does seem to me that the most an honest and rational observer can possibly say is that Iran has every reason to desire nuclear weapons, as well as good reasons not to, but so far there is no substantive evidence to contradict the repeated assertions by Iran’s military and political leaders that nuclear weapons are not just unsought after, but are forbidden to the Islamic Republic on theological grounds.

I tend to lean towards the belief that there is probably no intention to obtain nuclear weapons on the part of the Iranian regime. In any event, the problem in the region is not the intentions of the Iranian regime, which has constrained regional power and limited capabilities. The problem is the threat of violence by the two regimes with unmatched military forces in the region, a proven record of military aggression, and a demonstrable belief in their national entitlement to disregard any moral, legal or political constraints on the enforcement of their dictats on other nations. Namely, the US and Israel.

As I’ve commented here before, Iranian nuclear weapons would probably be a good thing for the region (provided the US and Israeli regimes could be prevented from engaging in further unjustified “preventive” military aggression), because it would place some much needed constraints on the freedom of action of the US and Israeli regimes, and force the Israelis in particular to seek compromise rather than maximalist objectives. Which is, of course, the real reason for the hostility towards it in certain quarters.

“And unload he did: on the Truman administration, on the Obama administration, on “the Zionist regime,” on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, on the NPT itself.”

His argument also hinges on the same unfounded assumption you criticized last week. According to Stephens, “the distinction that matters when it comes to nuclear weapons is between responsible, democratic states, and reckless, unstable and dictatorial ones.”

So it’s okay, Stephens asserts, for India, Pakistan, and Israel to have nuclear weapons because they are “democracies and allies of the United States” and hence should not be treated “as pariahs for not subscribing to a treaty that fails to recognize their imperative national security interests, at least as they themselves perceive them.” Iran, on the other hand, because of its internal make-up, is apparently not allowed to perceive itself to have imperative national security interests.

I assume that Iran has no intention of building a weapon, largely because there’s no evidence they can. They aren’t going to divert material from the sites open to inspection, and I don’t believe they would invest in substantial secret sites, because these would be so easily detected by US satellites which have spectrum analysis capabilities.

I doubt there’s an evil conspiracy in the US government to knowingly promote falsehoods; rather, I think government officials are so paranoid about the possibility of being blamed for an Iranian bomb that the lack of evidence here just doesn’t register with them.

Taking this perspective the Iran panic seems even more absurd than it does otherwise. (I wouldn’t be especially bothered if they did build a few crude weapons; they would obviously be a pure deterrent.)

It is of course worth pointing out that two of the closest American allies, Israel and India, possess huge stocks of nuclear weapons, but are not a signatories to the NPT, and that the US blatantly violated the NPT in the recent deal with India.

But then again, you are dealing with someone who assumes, a priori, that America is “good” and opponents of America are “bad.” Its like explaining algebra to a monkey.

“By the way, Daniel, are you Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox? There was some question on another thread.”

I believe you are referring to me. Just as I did about a month ago when I saw Larison make a reference to “Pascha” in one of his posts, I googled “Daniel Larison” and found this:
“A convert to Orthodox Christianity since 2003, he serves as a reader at a local Russian Orthodox parish in the Chicago area.” http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/who-we-are/editors-at-large/daniel-larison/ So, unless he is hanging out at a Russian Orthodox church because he is hiding from some Greek Orthodox creditor, I am assuming that he is Russian Orthodox.

I don’t think he’s hiding anything. Here’s how he described himself in his earlier blog “What’s Wrong With the World” (which appears to dispel the notion that he is hiding from a Greek Orthodox creditor) :

“Daniel Larison is a doctoral candidate in Byzantine history at the University of Chicago. Currently living in Hyde Park, he hails from Albuquerque. When he is not allegedly writing his dissertation on the sixth ecumenical council, he blogs at Eunomia on politics and foreign policy, translates Armenian poetry and serves as a reader at his local Russian Orthodox parish.” http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/author.php?author_id=8

Ya know, as it’s 1:30 in the morning, and I’m just sorta wandering around here by my lonesome, I may as well say I wish Daniel would talk about the Byzantine Empire a little more. He’s studied it, he’s obviously very bright, and I for one would love to know his thoughts on its place in history. Just a quirk, probably, but he does have the background, and I would love to know whether he thinks it was a bulwark against Islam, a doomed last gasp of the Roman Empire, a nation state like any other that reached its end, or what?

“But then again, you are dealing with someone who assumes, a priori, that America is “good” and opponents of America are “bad.” Its like explaining algebra to a monkey.”

LOL! That’s an excellent summary of what it’s like to discuss foreign affairs generally with most (though not all) Americans – and that includes many of American “experts” who are published. Their intelligence and expertise are overwhelmed by the prejudice stemming from the exceptionalism with which their society is suffused.

doc spectrum:
“I doubt there’s an evil conspiracy in the US government to knowingly promote falsehoods; rather, I think government officials are so paranoid about the possibility of being blamed for an Iranian bomb that the lack of evidence here just doesn’t register with them.”

You are doubtless correct in general on motivation, at least for a lot of members of the current US regime. The Democrats seem to be mostly craven on the issue rather than as blatantly evil as much of the last Bush regime. The same cannot, I think, be said in defence of people like Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby, Bolton, Woolsey and Perle. Those men, I suspect, either lied knowingly or wilfully deceived themselves when it came to supposed threats from Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Of course, this kind of thing can only ever be speculation, absent some kind of confession.

But it would be naive not to recognise the influence of those in US political and media circles personally committed to exaggerating supposed threats from Iran, Iraq (formerly) and Syria, when considering the reasons for the existence of American miscomprehension of the region in that particular direction.

This is what an honest, decent and courageous US President would say regarding the Iran nuclear issue:

“Iran is 100% entitled to a civilian nuclear program, and so long as it remains within the bounds of its NPT commitments it is entitled by the same treaty to the assistance of existing nuclear weapons states in achieving that, no matter what Iran’s local enemies might claim. Furthermore Iran as a sovereign state is entitled to develop and possess nuclear weapons for its own defence if it believes they are necessary, though doing so would be incompatible with its status as a signatory to the NPT and would be a huge blow to global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons generally. We hope that Iran’s policy will be based upon the statements of its own religious and political authorities concerning the unacceptability of nuclear weapons, but we also recognise that the United States, by virtue of its economic and military power and its history of intervention in the region, has a duty to play its part in reassuring Iran that it does not need nuclear weapons. Accordingly, I give my personal guarantee on behalf of the people of the United States, that the United States will not in the future make any unilateral act of war against Iran, whether by open or covert military action or by economic sanctions, except in direct and proportionate response to particular, concrete acts of military aggression by Iran. Words, of course, can give only limited reassurance in such matters, and I have directed my staff to pursue contacts with the Iranian government concerning measures that can be taken by us to reduce tensions and to remove any possible reason for Iran to feel threatened by the United States and its military forces.

Iran merely making nuclear weapons can never justify a military attack upon that country, by this country or by any other, and I also guarantee that any US ally making such an attack would face the severest possible consequences. But Iran nevertheless must understand that if it acquires nuclear weapons this will inevitably cause dramatically increased tension in the region and will also unavoidably worsen relations between us. I hope that Iran will not feel the need to do so, and that we can now move forward towards compromise settlements of the outstanding issues in the region, acceptable to all reasonable people on all sides.”

“For all this, Iran is still considered a member in good standing of the treaty, entitled to its seat at the International Atomic Energy Agency and its right to the nuclear reactors”

The Guardian’s summary says: “In a speech which overran his five-minute slot by half an hour, he said: “Regrettably, the government of the US has not only used nuclear weapons, but continues to threaten to use such weapons against other countries, including Iran.” Ahmadinejad also had harsh words for the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he said had been “unsuccessful in discharging its responsibilities” because of the influence of the US over its management. He called for the US to be removed from the agency’s board of governors and be subjected to a formal UN rebuke for the use of nuclear threats.”

Ahmadinejad’s charges are clearly well founded. The US has obviously used and continues to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, and it is obvious that the IAEA has been subverted by the US regime.

Ahmadinejad is also clearly correct that the US ought to be removed from any role in the governance of the IAEA and ought to receive a formal rebuke for its nuclear threat to Iran and North Korea. Of course, we live in a fallen world where what happens is determined not by what ought to happen, but by who has the power and wealth, and that’s the US, for the moment.

“Fair enough. Daniel is Russian Orthodox. Let it be shouted from the rooftops unto all the lands.

And he’s right about Iran. Also, too.”

Orthodox in his Christian religious views, but unorthodox in his views on Iran (at least in some circles, especially those tainted with neoconservative religious beliefs). I also think he’s right about Iran. By contrast, Obama could be said to have once been Wright in his religious views but Wrong in his views on Iran going back at least to 2004.

Btw, Obama was not the only Democratic candidate who was expressing a hard line against Iran in the 2004 election cycle. Betty Castor, the Democratic nominee for Senate who came close to defeating George W. Bush’s handpicked candidate Mel Martinez, campaigned on a platform calling for possible military attacks on Iran to halt its nuckear program. She, at least, had some political justification for taking such a hard line since she was appealing to the strongly pro-Israel Jewish voting bloc of South Florida in a close election. Obama, on the other hand, was competing against the perennial loser, non-resident Alan Keyes in a race that was not even competitive. What is even more remarkable is that the public’s unhappiness with the Iraq War was beginning to be manifested in the 2004 election. This indicates to me that, despite all its criticism of George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has silently embraced his Axis of Evil thesis. Witness our current Secretary of State, former New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Philip Giraldi seems to share at least some part of my wish for what a decent US President should do:

“The only option that I believe would actually work is for Obama to go public preemptively on the issue and proclaim that there is no casus belli with Iran, that any Israeli attack will not be supported by the United States and that furthermore the United States will take the lead in condemning such an act in the United Nations and in all other appropriate international fora. Is that likely to happen? I think not. And that is precisely the reason why I think a new war in the Middle East is inevitable and will take place this year, probably by August.”